The Instigator
DogInTheBox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should The Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 84612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

DogInTheBox

Pro

R1: Debate
R2: Debate
R3: Final Arguments

I am Pro, you are Con and trying to prove why the Equal Rights Amendment shouldn't have been passed.

Debate will be hard, are you up for the challenge?
Stupidape

Con

Outline
I. Intro and history
II. Equality swings both ways
III. Summary
IV. links

I. Intro

R1 is debate, so I will not waste this round with acceptance only and instead produce a full fledged argument.

The Equal Rights Amendment was started in 1923 "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

This simple sentence comprised Section 1 of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was first proposed in Congress by the National Women's Party in 1923. " [1]

II. Equality swings both ways


Now with equality it swings both ways. For example animals being more equal to human would also open the flood gates for human testing. After-all, if we gave human and animals equal rights and we already test on animals like vivisection labs, it would only be just to subject humans to vivisection also.

"Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products." [2]

In the name of justice, these same experiments would have to be performed on humans. Experimenting on one group but not another would be unfair.

The same would be true of men and woman equality. Woman would be drafted at the same age as men. Maternity leave would be questioned. All bathrooms would have to be unisex. After all, restrooms in their current states are segregation, separate but equal. Note, separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Then, there is the issue of menstruation. Woman would not be given special consideration. This is especially prudent when dealing with swimming pools. This would pit public health versus gender equality.

Next, is the issue of men's and women's locker rooms. To avoid gender discrimination unisex locker rooms would be used. Men and women would get changed in the same locker rooms.

Similarly, public showers would be unisex. Both men and woman would shower in the same room. Finally, there would be the issue of religious freedom. Many religions practice strict segregation of men and woman. Thus, gender equality would interfere with the first amendment, freedom of religion. [3].

III. Summary

While sounding like a good idea on the surface. Gender equality would have many costs that would become apparently quickly. Mainly, woman would get drafted. Public health, menstruation, and swimming pools. Finally shared restrooms would leave many opportunities for sexual assault. A woman would no longer be able to scream without practicing discrimination when a man walks into a locker room, bathroom, or shower with the woman.


IV. Links
1. http://www.ushistory.org...
2. http://vivisectioninfo.org...
3. http://constitution.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DogInTheBox

Pro

"Now with equality it swings both ways. For example animals being more equal to human would also open the flood gates for human testing. After-all, if we gave human and animals equal rights and we already test on animals like vivisection labs, it would only be just to subject humans to vivisection also."

The Equal Rights Amendment says "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

If you have not read it, the amendment means by sex, not species and is given to humans exclusively. The Constitution is not a tool for giving animals rights, but humans. To include any amendment giving animals exclusive rights would be an unwise choice considering they would have to propose the amendment, and approve it, which the government finds quite wasteful. In the beginning of America, soldiers fought a hard and long war against the British to have these rights, but for who? Surely not pets of course.

"Next, is the issue of men's and women's locker rooms. To avoid gender discrimination unisex locker rooms would be used. Men and women would get changed in the same locker rooms.

Similarly, public showers would be unisex. Both men and woman would shower in the same room. Finally, there would be the issue of religious freedom. Many religions practice strict segregation of men and woman. Thus, gender equality would interfere with the first amendment, freedom of religion. [3]."

This theory is rather wild and unlikely. Let me remind you that it is the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government to interpret the laws including amendments, not you. This is also unconstitutional, as both genders Ninth Amendment rights would be broken.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right of privacy is one retained by the people although it is not written down, as well as the right to get married, own a violin, own a guitar, own a bottle of lotion, and etc.

"While sounding like a good idea on the surface. Gender equality would have many costs that would become apparently quickly. Mainly, woman would get drafted. Public health, menstruation, and swimming pools. Finally shared restrooms would leave many opportunities for sexual assault. A woman would no longer be able to scream without practicing discrimination when a man walks into a locker room, bathroom, or shower with the woman. "

Let me remind you that this debate is no place for sexism; it is a formal debate on whether or not The Equal Rights Amendment should be passed. And again, that would violate their Ninth Amendment rights.

https://www.whitehouse.gov...
https://www.whitehouse.gov...
Stupidape

Con

I wasn't exactly sure what Pro's point was the last round. Something about the 9th amendment and the judicial branch's ability to interpret the amendment.

Couldn't the judicial branch interpret the amendment the same way I did or very similarly? Also, what would be the point of the proposed equal right amendment if between the judicial branch's interpretation and the 9th amendment if no change took place?

Do we really want our daughters, sisters, and nieces forced to draft? Nay, I say.
Debate Round No. 2
DogInTheBox

Pro

No, they would not interpret it the same way. You ignore my arguments, and play ignorant. If you do not get what "The Judicial Branch interprets the laws" and "The ninth amendment gives unlisted rights (privacy being one of them) then you have not studied the amendments and should not be debating on this topic.

" Do we really want our daughters, sisters, and nieces forced to draft?"

America has not needed to draft since the Vietnam war, so that argument fell flat on its face.

If you simply would like to ignore the facts I have pointed out, or did not understand them, then you are not cut out for this debate which has to do with the Constitution and amendments. Opinion and emotion have no place here.
Stupidape

Con

My opponent has not made any substantial arguments for the equal rights amendment. Instead, chasing after my arguments. Since this is the 3rd and final round I see no reason to defend my argument because I have already won.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Anjou// Mod action:Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Voted that con used more reliable sources because although pro's sources were undoubtedly legitimate, they did nothing to better their argument, only to reinforce a very common, general definition.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't justify arguments, only using his RFD to explain sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by DogInTheBox 1 year ago
DogInTheBox
I lost my patience since my opponent didn't know about the Judicial Branch and Ninth Amendment rights.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
I felt this was going somewhere with the first line up of arguments.... What happened at the end of R2?
No votes have been placed for this debate.